Webster v. Reproductive Health Services Oral Arguments
2006-01-07T16:06:02-05:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvN2U4XC8xOTA1NTYtbS5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==Attorneys made oral arguments in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Then Missouri Attorney General William Webster argued the case for the respondents. Frank Susman argued the case for the petitioners. Charles Fried argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae.
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute’s preamble indicated that “the life of each human being begins at conception,” and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother’s life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.
The question being argued was if the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute’s preamble indicated that “the life of each human being begins at conception,” and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother’s life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.
The question being argued was if the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to
Attorneys made oral arguments in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Then Missouri Attorney General William Webster ar… read more
Attorneys made oral arguments in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Then Missouri Attorney General William Webster argued the case for the respondents. Frank Susman argued the case for the petitioners. Charles Fried argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae.
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute’s preamble indicated that “the life of each human being begins at conception,” and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother’s life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.
The question being argued was if the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to close
Related Video
-
Webster v. Missouri Reproductive Services
The appellant speaks about the Supreme Court Decision on Webster V. Missouri.
-
Abortion Ruling
Attorney General of Missouri William Webster talks at a press conference about an abortion ruling.
-
Planned Parenthood v. Casey Oral Argument
Attorneys made oral arguments in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey. Robert P. Casey was …
-
Stenberg v. Carhart Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments were heard in the U.S. Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart. Nebraska Attorney General Donald Stenberg …
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 1 minute
- 1 view